Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension improves the prognostic value of the pathological TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma

(1)

University of Groningen

Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension improves the prognostic value

of the pathological TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma

Boeve, Koos; Melchers, Lieuwe J; Schuuring, Ed; Roodenburg, Jan L; Halmos, Gyorgy B; van

Dijk, Boukje A; van der Vegt, Bert; Witjes, Max J

Published in: Histopathology DOI:

10.1111/his.13886

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2019

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Boeve, K., Melchers, L. J., Schuuring, E., Roodenburg, J. L., Halmos, G. B., van Dijk, B. A., van der Vegt, B., & Witjes, M. J. (2019). Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension improves the prognostic value of the pathological TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology, 75(3), 329-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13886

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal

extension improves the prognostic value of the pathological

TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell

carcinoma

Koos Boeve,

1,2

Lieuwe J Melchers,

1

Ed Schuuring,

2

Jan L Roodenburg,

1

Gyorgy B Halmos,

3

Boukje A van Dijk,

4,5

Bert van der Vegt

2

& Max J Witjes

1

1_{Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,}2_{Department of Pathology & Medical Biology,}3_{Department of} Otorhinolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery,4Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, and5Department of Research, Comprehensive Cancer Organization of The Netherlands (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands

Date of submission 21 February 2019 Accepted for publication 22 April 2019 Published online Article Accepted 25 April 2019

Boeve K, Melchers L J, Schuuring E, Roodenburg J L, Halmos G B, van Dijk B A, van der Vegt B & Witjes M J (2019) Histopathology 75, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13886

Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension improves the prognostic

value of the pathological TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Aims: In the 8th edition of the American Joint Com-mittee on Cancer TNM staging manual, tumour infil-tration depth and extranodal extension are added to the pathological classification for oral squamous cell carcinoma. The currently available 8th TNM valida-tion studies lack patients with conservative neck treatment, and changes in the classification especially affect patients with small tumours. The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of the changes in the 8th edition pTNM classification on the prognosis and treatment strategy for oral squamous cell carcinoma in a well-defined series of pT1–T2 patients with long-term follow-up.

Methods and results: Two hundred and eleven first primary pT1–T2 oral squamous cell carcinoma patients, with surgical resection as primary treat-ment, were analysed retrospectively. One hundred and seventy-three patients underwent a neck

dissection, and 38 patients had frequent clinical neck assessments. Long-term follow-up (median 64 months) and reassessed tumour infiltration depth were available. Classification according to the 8th edi-tion criteria resulted in 36% total upstaging with the T classification and 16% total upstaging with the N classification. T3-restaged patients (n= 30, 14%) had lower 5-year disease-specific survival rates than T2-staged patients (81% versus 67%, P= 0.042). Post-operative (chemo)radiotherapy could have been con-sidered in another seven (3%) patients on the basis of the 8th edition criteria.

Conclusions: Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension in the 8th TNM classifica-tion leads to the identificaclassifica-tion of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients with a worse prognosis who might benefit from an improved postoperative treat-ment strategy.

Keywords: head and neck cancer, lymph nodes, mouth neoplasms, oral cancer, survival, TNM staging

Introduction

In 2016, the 8th edition of the American Joint Com-mittee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging manual was released.1 As compared with the 7th edition, tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension (ENE)

Address for correspondence: K Boeve, MD, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (HPC BB70) and Department of Pathology & Medical Biology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1 (visiting address), PO Box 30001, 9700 RB (mailing address), Groningen, The Netherlands. e-mail: j.boeve@umcg.nl

(3)

were incorporated into the pathological TNM classifi-cation for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).1,2 On the basis of the 8th edition criteria, 7th edition pT1 patients with a tumour infiltration depth between 5 and 10 mm are restaged as pT2, and all pT1 and pT2 patients with a tumour infiltration depth of >10 mm are restaged as pT3. Following the pN classification in the 8th edition, cases with a sin-gle positive lymph node <30 mm in diameter with ENE are restaged from pN1 to pN2b, and all other ENE-positive patients are restaged as pN3b.

The incorporation of tumour infiltration depth and ENE in the pathological TNM classification was based on data from both the International Consortium for Outcome Research in Head and Neck Cancer (ICOR) (n = 3149) and the National Cancer Data Base (n = 7264).2,3 The 8th edition has been validated in various independent databases: the pT and pN classi-fications by Lydiatt et al.2 (n = 1792) and Matos et al.4 (n = 298), and the pN classification by Garcia et al.5 (n = 1137). These studies confirmed a better prediction of survival per stratification with the 8th pTNM classification edition, whereby patients who had been upstaged because of the incorporation of tumour infiltration depth and ENE generally had lower survival rates.

Despite the validation with big data, the clinical impact for small tumours (pT1–T2) is not really clear. As mentioned by Matos et al.3,4 and the ICOR study, their populations were limited to patients undergoing neck dissections. Patients with a clinically negative neck not treated with selective neck dissections—also known as watchful waiting—were not included. This point is important, because incorporation of infiltra-tion depth in the pT classificainfiltra-tion could also influence prognosis and, as a result, change the treatment strategy for these early-stage patients. Therefore, our aim was to study the clinical impact of the 8th tion pTNM classification on the survival of 7th edi-tion pT1–T2 patients treated with surgical resection of the tumour combined with neck dissection or a watchful waiting strategy. We selected pathologically staged T1–T2 OSCC patients from our large and homogeneous database with extensive clinicopatho-logical and long-term follow-up data.6,7

Materials and methods

P A T I E N T S

This cohort with reassessed tumour infiltration depth has been previously described.6,7 Briefly, 246 consec-utive patients with pT1–T2 OSCC according to the

7th edition, diagnosed between 1997 and 2008 with a first primary tumour and treated with surgical resection of the tumour at the University Medical Centre Groningen, were selected from our database. Thirty-five patients were excluded because of multiple head and neck tumours (n= 3), irretrievable haema-toxylin and eosin (H&E) slides (n = 13), or unreliable assessment of infiltration depth because of missing epithelial surfaces and tangential tissue cutting (n = 19), resulting in 211 patients being available for tumour infiltration depth reassessment. Thirty-eight patients (18%) with a pT1 tumour did not undergo a neck dissection, but were followed closely (watchful waiting). This strategy was common in the era before the awareness that an infiltration depth of 4 mm implied a high chance of tumour spread to lymph nodes.6 The 38 patients with watchful waiting had a median tumour infiltration depth of 3.2 mm [in-terquartile range (IQR) 2.1–5.6 mm]. In total, 211 patients were used for analysis, and 173 of these were treated with neck dissection. The clinical and histopathological characteristics of the study group are shown in Table 1. In total, 72 patients received postoperative radiotherapy, but none of the watchful waiting patients were postoperatively irradiated. The median follow-up time was 64 months (range 0– 193 months). Thirteen patients (6%) were diagnosed with local recurrence and 26 (12%) with regional recurrence. Of the 38 watchful waiting patients, two patients were diagnosed with a local recurrence and seven patients with regional recurrences during their follow-up. Sixty-eight patients (32%) died in the first 5 years after treatment, 57% because of the OSCC. OSCC-related death (median 63 years; IQR 54– 70 years) occurred at a significantly younger age than OSCC-unrelated death (median 71 years; IQR 62–79 years) (P = 0.010).

D A T A C O L L E C T I O N

Clinical and pathological data were collected retro-spectively from the patient files. Tumour H&E-stained slides were revised by one dedicated head and neck pathologist, and tumour infiltration depth was reas-sessed by the use of digital microscopy and comput-erised measurements (RESEARCH ASSISTANT 6; RVC,

Soest, The Netherlands). Tumour infiltration depth was measured from the mucosal surface or from the reconstructed mucosal surface in cases of ulcerated or exophytic tumours7; this differs from the AJCC man-ual in using the mucosal surface instead of the muco-sal basement membrane.2 ENE was defined as an extension of tumour cells beyond the nodal capsule,

(4)

and forms part of the standard pathology report in our centre. Cases with no convincing extension beyond the nodal capsule (i.e. no stromal reaction) were scored as negative. We revised the pathological tumour and pathological nodal classification accord-ing to the 8th edition. Five-year disease-specific sur-vival (DSS) was defined as the time from first treatment until disease-specific death or the last fol-low-up, with a maximum of 5 years. Three-year dis-ease-free survival (DFS) was defined as the time until local, regional or distant recurrence or the last fol-low-up within 3 years after the start of the initial treatment. Death was censored and did not count as a DFS event.

E T H I C A L J U S T I F I C A T I O N

As this study used retrospectively evaluated data from patients treated according to the Dutch national guidelines for oral cavity cancer, approval from the hospital research ethics board was not necessary according to the Dutch ethical regulations.8

S T A T I S T I C S

Categorical data are presented as number and per-centage, normally distributed data are presented as mean with standard deviation (SD), and skewed data are presented as median with IQR. Fisher’s exact or chi-squared tests were used to test the associations between categorical data. The log-rank test was used to analyse differences between the Kaplan–Meier curves. DSS is reported as a percentage of survival after 5 years, and DFS is reported as a percentage of survival after 3 years. STATA statistical software

(Release 15.1) was used to determine the 95% confi-dence intervals of the DSS and DFS survival percent-ages (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). All other statistical analyses were performed withIBM SPSS STATIS-TICS 23 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). P-values of <0.05

Table 1. Population characteristics

Variables Value

Total patients,n(%) 211 (100) Gender,n(%)

Male 118 (56)

Female 93 (44)

Age at diagnosis (years)

Mean (SD) 62 (13) Range 25–94 Site,n(%) Tongue 108 (51) Gum 14 (7) Floor of mouth 64 (30) Cheek mucosa 7 (3) Retromolar area 12 (6) Other 6 (3) cT status (7th edition),n(%) 1–2 189 (90) 3–4 22 (10) cN status (7th edition),n(%) cN+ 50 (24) cN0 161 (76) Histopathological characteristics Tumour thickness (mm) Median (IQR) 6.0 (3.3–9.0) Range 0.1–20.0 Perineural invasion,n(%) 35 (17) Lymphovascular invasion,n(%) 19 (9) Involved margins (<1 mm) 32 (15) PO(C)RT,n(%) 72 (34) Follow-up (months) Median (IQR) 64 (30–99) Range 0–193 Recurrences,n(%) Locoregional recurrence 13 (6) Regional recurrence 26 (12) Table 1. (Continued) Variables Value Distant metastasis 6 (3) Death,n(%) Due to disease 36 (17) Overall 68 (32)

IQR, interquartile range; PO(C)RT, postoperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy; SD, standard deviation.

(5)

were considered to be significant for all of the statisti-cal analyses.

Results

T U M O U R S T A G I N G

In total, 211 patients with a median tumour infiltra-tion depth of 6.0 mm (IQR 3.3–9.9 mm) were used for the pT classification analysis. Tumour restaging according to the 8th edition resulted in upstaging of 75 (36%) of the 211 patients: 12 (6%) patients on the basis of both tumour infiltration depth and ENE, and 63 (30%) patients on the basis of tumour infiltra-tion depth only. Figure 1A shows the differences between the 7th and 8th pT editions. Fifty-four pT1 patients (44%) and 21 pT2 patients (24%) were restaged according to the 8th edition criteria. Patients with tongue tumours were significantly more often restaged to pT2 (31%) or pT3 (19%) than patients with tumours in the other anatomical locations, for whom restaging occurred in 12% (pT2) and 9% (pT3) (P < 0.001). Of the 38 watchful waiting patients, 11 (29%) were restaged to pT2. These patients had significantly shorter DSS (P= 0.016) and DFS (P= 0.033) than the other 27 patients (Fig-ure 2A, B). Within the watchful waiting group, three (11%) of the 27 non-restaged patients and four (36%) of the 11 restaged patients were diagnosed with regional recurrences during follow-up (not sig-nificant). Sixteen of the 45 patients (35%) restaged from pT1 to pT2 had undergone postoperative radio-therapy after surgical resection of the tumour. Twenty-three of the 30 patients restaged as pT3 had been postoperatively irradiated. The 8th edition pT classification showed good stratification, with signifi-cantly shorter DSS for the pT1–T2 patients upstaged to pT3 than for non-restaged pT2 patients (81% ver-sus 66%, P= 0.048; Figure 3B; Table 2).

N O D A L S T A G I N G

Of the 173 neck dissection patients, 72 (42%) were diagnosed with nodal metastasis. Twenty-eight (16%) of these 173 patients were restaged with the 8th edi-tion criteria because of ENEs (Figure 1B). No signifi-cant differences were seen in N status restaging between anatomical locations. Twenty-six of the 28 restaged patients had been treated postoperatively with radiotherapy, which was combined with chemotherapy in one patient. The 8th edition pN classification showed good stratification, with an 89% 5-year survival rate for the watchful waiting patients,

and pN3-staged patients having the shortest survival rates, although the difference in DSS between pN2-staged and pN3-pN2-staged patients was not significant (69% versus 48%, P= 0.072; Figure 3D; Table 2).

S T A G E G R O U P I N G

In total, 42 (20%) patients were restaged with the 8th edition criteria. Differences in stage grouping per cate-gory between the 7th and 8th editions are shown in Figure 1C. Restaging with the 8th edition resulted in a smaller difference in DSS between stage I and stage II: 11% versus 3% difference in the 5-year DSS between

Tumor classification T1 122 T1 68 N0 101 N1 30 N2 41 N3 1 N0 101 Stage I 58 Stage II 43 Stage III 30 Stage IV 42 Stage I 32 Stage II 54 Stage III 39 Stage IV 48 N1 24 N2 25 N3 23 T3 30 T2 113 38 ww 84 ND 11 (29%) 34 (40%) (11%)9 6 (20%) 21 (36%) 6 (20%) 5 (9%) 10 (23%) 22 (54%) 21 (24%) T1 89 A Nodal classification B Stage grouping C 7th_edition 8th_edition 7th_edition 8th_edition 7th_edition 8th_edition

Figure 1. Differences in tumour, nodal and stage grouping between the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Can-cer TNM classification. N, nodal; ND, neck dissection; T, tumour; WW, watchful waiting.

(6)

the 7th and 8th stage I and stage II editions, respec-tively. After restaging with the 8th edition criteria, the difference in DSS was larger between stage II and stage III, being 12% with the 7th edition (85% and 73%, not significant) versus 20% with the 8th edition (94% and 74%, P= 0.007) (Figure 3F; Table 2).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of the addition of tumour infiltration depth and ENE in the 8th edition of the pathological TNM classifi-cation on survival and potential alterations in treat-ment strategy for pT1–T2 OSCC patients who had been treated on the basis of the 7th edition. In this study, 36% and 16% of all of the patients were restaged with the 8th edition criteria according to the pT and pN classifications, respectively. Patients restaged as pT3 showed significantly shorter DSS than 8th edition pT1–T2-staged patients. Another seven (3%) patients who were restaged as pT3 could possibly have bene-fited from postoperative radiotherapy.

This study used a well-defined 7th edition pT1–T2 cohort with extensive clinical data to add to the cur-rent evidence validating the 8th edition TNM classifi-cation.2,4,5 Patients with a watchful waiting strategy of the neck were also included, which was not the case in the large ICOR study and the validation study by Matos et al.3,4Recently, two other studies investigated the differences between the 7th edition and 8th edition TNM staging by using early-stage OSCC patients.9,10 These studies differed from the current study by using sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)-staged patients or

by analysing only the pT categories and not the pN categories. This study confirms the previously men-tioned validation study findings regarding the shorter survival rate of patients restaged as pT3 and pN3 with the 8th edition criteria.2,4,5 However, the number of restaged patients differs between studies. In this study, 44% of the 7th edition pT1 patients were restaged, ver-sus 44% and 61% in other studies,3,4and 24% of the pT2 patients were restaged, versus 62% and 47% in other studies.3,4 Remarkably, one of the other studies did not restage any of the 7th edition pT1 patients to pT3.3Differences in restaging rates might be explained by differences in clinical care between the countries. In The Netherlands, people visit their general dental prac-titioner once a year or more, whereas one of the vali-dation studies stated in the discussion that the restaging rates could have been limited by a high rate of advanced disease, which is a reality in emerging countries.4

Restaging to a higher classification level with the 8th edition criteria is only possible for 7th edition pT1–T2 patients. Consequently, the 8th edition is clinically most relevant for these patients. This is why we used a cohort of 7th edition pT1–T2 patients to obtain an unadulterated view of the differences in prognosis. The inclusion of only pT1–T2 patients resulted in a relatively small number of 8th edition pT3 patients as compared with other studies. Also, the ENE rate in this study is lower than in the other 8th edition TNM validation studies: 39% versus 51% and 53%, respectively.4,5 The inclusion of only pT1– T2 patients could explain the lower ENE rate than in studies that also included more advanced disease.

A 7th AJCC edition pT1 watchful waiting patients

100

Disease specific survival, %

80 60

Log - Rank p = 0.016 Log - Rank p = 0.033

Number at risk pT1 27 11 2610 2610 267 265 253 pT2 Number at risk pT1 27 11 25 8 23 7 22 4 pT2 8th pT1 8th pT2 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

Follow-up time, years

4 5

B 7th AJCC edition pT1 watchful waiting patients

100

Disease free survival, %

80 60 8th pT1 8th pT2 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

Figure 2. Differences in disease-specific survival (A) and disease-free survival (B) for 7th pT1-classified patients with a watchful waiting strat-egy of the neck which were staged using the 8th edition pT criteria

(7)

A 7th_{AJCC ed. pT-classification} 100

80 60 Number at risk pT1 122 89 115 71 109 64 99 55 91 49 77 43 pN0 Stage I WW Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage I WW Stage II Stage III Stage IV WW pN1 pN2 pN3 pN0 WW pN1 pN2 pN3 pT2 pT1 pT2 pT1 pT2 pT3 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

4 5

B 8th_{AJCC ed. pT-classification} 100

80 60 Number at risk pT1 pT2 pT3 68 113 30 66 97 23 62 90 21 58 80 16 54 71 15 48 60 12 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

4 5

C 7th_{AJCC ed. pN-classification} 100

80 60 Number at risk WW pN0 pN1 pN2 pN3 WW Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV WW Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV 38 58 43 30 42 37 56 38 26 29 37 52 37 23 24 34 49 31 22 18 31 47 26 19 17 30 38 25 16 11 38 32 54 39 48 37 31 50 34 34 37 29 48 31 28 34 27 44 27 22 31 25 39 25 20 30 21 34 22 13 WW pN0 pN1 pN2 pN3 38 101 24 25 23 37 94 21 26 8 37 89 19 23 5 34 80 18 18 4 31 73 16 16 4 30 63 14 11 2 38 101 30 41 1 37 94 26 28 1 37 89 23 24 0 34 80 22 18 0 31 73 19 17 0 30 63 16 11 0 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

4 5

D 8th_{AJCC ed. pN-classification} 100

80 60 Number at risk 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

4 5

E ₇th_{AJCC ed. pTN-staging} 100

80 60 Number at risk 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

4 5

F 8th_{AJCC ed. pTN-staging} 100

80 60 Number at risk 40 20 0 1 2 3

4 5

Figure 3. Disease-specific survival (DSS) Kaplan–Meier curves for the 7th edition (A,C,E) and the 8th edition (B,D,F) American Joint Commit-tee on Cancer TNM classifications. Five-year survival rates with their 95% confidence intervals for each disease-specific survival curve and log-rank test are given in Table 2. N, nodal; T, tumour; WW, watchful waiting.

(8)

We previously stated that a tumour infiltration depth of 4 mm could serve as an optimal cut-off between elective and therapeutic neck dissections, on the basis of results obtained with the same cohort.6 Therefore, it is not surprising that the 8th edition pT2 patients (tumour infiltration depth of 5–10 mm) showed shorter survival in this study. Furthermore, another study suggested using a 4-mm tumour infil-tration depth as a cut-off for pT3 tumours instead of

the 8th edition AJCC pT cut-offs.9Twelve patients in this cohort had watchful waiting of the neck and an infiltration depth of >4 mm, because they were trea-ted before the introduction of the 4-mm cut-off in our centre. Exclusion of these 12 patients resulted in 100% 5-year survival for the remaining watchful waiting patients, and similar survival stratifications for the 7th and 8th pT and pN categories (Data S1 and S2).

Table 2. Disease-specific survival rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and log-rank test results of all stages

Edition Category

Survival Log-rank test

5-year (%) 95% CI Compared groups P-value

7th pT class T1 89 82–93 T1 versus T2 0.002 T2 72 61–81 8th pT class T1 91 81–96 T1 versus T2 0.077 T2 81 72–87 T2 versus T3 0.048 T3 66 45–80 T1 versus T3 0.001 7th pN class WW 89 73–86 WW versus N0 0.734 N0 92 84–96 N0 versus N1 0.005 N1 73 54–86 N1 versus N2 0.264 N2 59 42–73 N2 versus N3 0.402 N3 0 NA 8th pN class WW 89 73–96 WW versus N0 0.734 N0 92 84–96 N0 versus N1 0.016 N1 75 53–88 N1 versus N2 0.793 N2 69 46–84 N2 versus N3 0.072 N3 48 26–67

7th SG class WW 89 73–96 WW versus stage I 0.195

Stage I 96 86–99 Stage I versus stage II 0.056 Stage II 85 70–93 Stage II versus stage III 0.184 Stage III 73 54–86 Stage III versus stage IV 0.220

Stage IV 58 40–72

8th SG class WW 89 73–96 WW versus stage I 0.270

Stage I 97 78–99 Stage I versus stage II 0.594 Stage II 94 83–98 Stage II versus stage III 0.007 Stage III 74 58–85 Stage III versus stage IV 0.167

Stage IV 59 43–72

(9)

The benefit of this cohort was the availability of long-term follow-up, because no adjustments were made for OSCC in the 7th pTNM classification edition when it was released in 2009, as compared with the 6th edition.11

Additions to the pTNM classification are useful if they can be measured robustly and have a clinical impact. The national guidelines in The Netherlands support postoperative radiotherapy of T3–T4 tumours, even those with clear margins.12 If the patients in this cohort had been staged with the 8th edition and treated accordingly, another 3% of the patients would have received postoperative radiother-apy. Although the patients who were restaged according to the 8th edition pT classification criteria showed lower DSS, prospective studies are needed to confirm that radiotherapy is beneficial for these patients. Besides the adjuvant therapy, SLNB is cur-rently used as staging technique for cT1–2N0 patients in our centre.13 This study shows that the 30 (15%) patients who were restaged as T3 would not have had an indication for an SLNB according to the 8th edition criteria. Den Toom et al.10stated that 8th edition pT3 patients with tumours ≤40 mm in diameter probably benefit from staging of the neck with the SLNB procedure. However, further data are needed to verify whether the SLNB is still a reliable neck-staging technique for patients restaged from 7th edition pT1–T2 to 8th edition pT3. In our centre, pN3 patients are treated postoperatively with con-comitant chemoradiotherapy according to the current guidelines.12 Despite the better prognostic value of the 8th edition pN classification, pN staging with the 8th edition would not alter postoperative treatment strategies in our centre.

The growth of OSCCs can occur in an exophytic, an ulcerative or a superficial manner.2,6These differences in surface growth have resulted in various methods of assessment of tumour infiltration depth and thickness in the past.2 To prevent underestimation (ulcerative growth) or overestimation (exophytic growth) of the prognosis, for the 8th pT classification tumour infiltra-tion needs to be measured vertically from the recon-structed mucosa by use of the adjacent mucosal basement membrane of the normal epithelium.2In this study, the mucosal surface was used instead of the basement membrane. Healthy epithelial thicknesses are approximately 216 µm (SD 59 µm) for the tongue and 99µm (SD 22 µm) for the mucosa of the anterior floor of the mouth.14Because of these small differences between healthy mucosal surfaces and basement mem-branes, it is improbable that tumour infiltration depth assessment by use of the basement membrane would

have a large impact on our data. This was confirmed by an earlier study reporting an extremely high corre-lation between both methods (3.7% pT category differ-ence).4Another study reported a 5.7% difference in pT category when it compared both methods without cor-recting for exophytic growth.15 In cases of metastasis in lymph nodes, all cases with extension of the metas-tasis through the fibrous capsule into the surrounding tissue should be scored as ENE-positive.2To study the effect of ENE size in the future, Lydiatt et al.2advocate to divide ENE-positive lymph nodes in lymph nodes with minor ENE (<2 mm) and major ENE (>2 mm and metastasis without recognisable lymph node).

This study demonstrates, in a well-defined retro-spective cohort of 211 pT1–T2 (7th edition) OSCC patients, that the addition of tumour infiltration depth and ENE, as used in the 8th edition of the AJCC pathological TNM classification, identifies a group of restaged patients with a worse prognosis.

Conflict of Interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Author contributions

Concept, design, analysis and interpretation of data: K. Boeve, B. A. van Dijk, E. Schuuring, J. L. Rooden-burg, B. van der Vegt, and M. J. Witjes. Acquisition of data: K. Boeve, L. J. Melchers, G. B. Halmos, J. L. Roodenburg, B. van der Vegt, and M. J. Witjes. Criti-cal revision of the manuscript: all authors. Final approval of the version to be published: K. Boeve, E. Schuuring, Jan L Roodenburg, B. van der Vegt, and M. J. Witjes.

Acknowledgements

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. Chicago: Springer International Publishing, 2017. 2. Lydiatt WM, Patel SG, O’Sullivan B et al. Head and neck

can-cers—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Can-cer eighth edition canCan-cer staging manual. CA CanCan-cer J. Clin. 2017; 67; 122–137.

3. International Consortium for Outcome Research (ICOR) in Head and Neck Cancer, Ebrahimi A, Gil Z et al. Primary tumor staging for oral cancer and a proposed modification incorporat-ing depth of invasion: an international multicenter

(10)

retrospective study. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014; 140; 1138–1148.

4. Matos LL, Dedivitis RA, Kulcsar MAV, de Mello ES, Alves VAF, Cernea CR. External validation of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition, in an independent cohort of oral cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2017; 71; 47–53.

5. Garcia J, Lopez M, Lopez L et al. Validation of the pathological classification of lymph node metastasis for head and neck tumors according to the 8th edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. Oral Oncol. 2017; 70; 29_–33.

6. Melchers LJ, Schuuring E, van Dijk BA et al. Tumour infiltra-tion depth_{>/=4 mm is an indication for an elective neck} dis-section in pT1cN0 oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2012; 48; 337–342.

7. Heerema MG, Melchers LJ, Roodenburg JL, Schuuring E, de Bock GH, van der Vegt B. Reproducibility and prognostic value of pattern of invasion scoring in low-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology 2016; 68; 388–397.

8. Central Dutch.Committee on Research Involving Human Sub-jects. Available at: http://www.ccmo.nl/en/non-wmo-research (accessed 11 August 2017).

9. Almangush A, Makitie AA, Small Makinen LK et al. Small oral tongue cancers (</= 4 cm in diameter) with clinically negative neck: from the 7th to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Virchows Arch. 2018; 473; 481–487. 10. den Toom IJ, Janssen LM, van Es RJJ et al. Depth of invasion

in patients with early stage oral cancer staged by sentinel node biopsy. Head Neck 2019; 41; 2100_–2106.

11. Schmoll H-J, Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. (eds). AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition. Ann. Oncol. 2003; 14; 345–346.

12. Dutch guideline head and neck cancer 2014. Available at: https://www.nvmka.nl/sites/www.nvmka.nl/files/Richtlijn%

20Hoofd-halstumoren%202015.pdf (accessed 30 March 2017).

13. Boeve K, Schepman KP, Schuuring E et al. High sensitivity and negative predictive value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in a retrospective early stage oral cavity cancer cohort in the Northern Netherlands.Clin. Otolaryngol. 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/his.13886. Mar 25 [Epub ahead of print].

14. Prestin S, Rothschild SI, Betz CS, Kraft M. Measurement of epithelial thickness within the oral cavity using optical coher-ence tomography. Head Neck 2012; 34; 1777_–1781.

15. Dirven R, Ebrahimi A, Moeckelmann N, Palme CE, Gupta R, Clark J. Tumor thickness versus depth of invasion_{—analysis of} the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging for oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2017; 74; 30–33.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:

Data S1. Disease-specific survival rates, 95% confi-dence intervals and log-rank test results of all stages after exclusion of watchful waiting patients with a tumour infiltration depth of>4 mm.

Data S2. Disease-specific survival Kaplan-Meier curves for the 7th edition (A,C,E) and the 8th edition (B,D,F) TNM classifications after exclusion of watchful waiting patients with a tumourinfiltration depth of >4 mm.